Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Successful Project Completion: Bearhawk vs RV-7

  1. #11
    Leaning toward the RV due to the builder's support network and proven track record. (I may change my mind tomorrow.) I'm old enough that I don't want to spend years building. Looks to me like the RV QB may go together somewhat faster than the Bearhawk QB. Thanks Guys for everyone's input.

  2. #12
    Most people will change their mind numerous times. If you can manage to get a flight in any of the ones you are considering, it will help you decide.

    The current used aircraft market is great if you are a buyer right now. So unless you are absolutely sure that you want a big project to work on, you can plop down the same money and fly next week if you buy. Obviously it won't be a brand new
    airplane, and you will be limited as to the work you can do yourself on it. But if flying is your main goal, that is a very fast option.

    Van himself made a comment a while back, that given the choice for long cross country flying, he would opt for the RV9 instead of the RV7. From what I have read, it is a bit more docile with not quite the sports car handling of the RV7.

    Speed is a big seller on the RV. But it comes at the cost of limited baggage hauling. The speed difference over a few months of flying is not a big deal between say 125mph vs 190mph. But over the course of a year or more, you definitely save time and can dodge around weather more easily. Are you a get there fast, land, get things done, and get back home type? Then the RV is the way to go. How much time will you have to fly? If you fly on weekends only, and want to do a weekend trip and be back by Sunday night so you can be back at work on Monday, then speed becomes a factor. If you are retired, or work for yourself and have more free time and a more flexible time schedule, then it is no big deal flying a plane that cruises at 90mph.

    Other planes similar to the Bearhawk and Patrol would be the Rans S7, Kitfox S7 Supersport, Highlander from Just Aircraft, Sportsman 2+2 from Glasair, Murphy Rebel, and others.

    You will easily drop 50 bills + building any of them.

    If you buy a completed experimental aircraft, you are in the same boat as just buying a certified aircraft as far as maintenance. Your choice is to take it to an A&P for the annual and other major work, or the original builder of the airplane. Since you did not build it, you will not be able to get the repairman cert from the FAA. That is only issued to the ORIGINAL builder of the kit.

    The fastest kits to build would be even smaller, like the Titan Tornado. But again, you will drop a good 30 bills + on even those, with even less baggage capacity. BUT, it will get you flying fast and you put it together yourself. You could be in the air in 12 months or less building one of those.

    Vans has become like the Cessna 150 of the kit market as far as appeal goes. They are a dime a dozen now. Nobody is going to pay much attention to you while fueling up, which is good if you just want to gas and go. The more unique an airplane you land at any given airport, the more likely that your 15 minute fuel stop will turn into an hour or more show and tell session.

    There is something for everyone in the experimental market now. Do your research, be realistic about how you will ACTUALLY use the airplane. And also keep in mind that, for the most part, you will probably be flying alone the majority of the time.

    Also, with the tandem vs side by side seating issue, having a seat right next to you to put stuff on is very handy. It is kind of hard to grab things if other the seat is behind you.

  3. #13
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by BearHawke View Post
    If you buy a completed experimental aircraft, you are in the same boat as just buying a certified aircraft as far as maintenance. Your choice is to take it to an A&P for the annual and other major work, or the original builder of the airplane.
    I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. Anyone can maintain or modify an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. FAR Part 43 does not apply to Experimental Aircraft (see 43.1), in fact, there ARE no regulations governing maintenance and inspection of homebuilts. The aircraft's Operating Limits are the only governing item, and the FAA "boilerplate" usually says only that the aircraft must be inspected yearly by the holder of the Repairman Certificate or an A&P (not an IA).

    In the ~15 years of ownership of my Fly Baby (purchased in '96), I've removed and replaced cylinders, generators, starters, starter clutches, tail surfaces, wheels, brakes, radios, transponders, altitude encoders, antennas, and landing-gear legs (primary flight structure, on a Fly Baby). I just made the log entries myself and signed it off.

    Now, just because you CAN maintain your own aircraft doesn't mean you SHOULD. I was fortunate enough to have an experienced EAA Tech Counselor talk me through this stuff, and spent time talking to my A&P to ensure I was doing things right. Get someone experienced to look at your work, even if they don't sign it off.

  4. #14
    I stand corrected.

    While technically my statement may not meet FAA paper pusher guidelines, the advice was solid. Meaning, if you buy an experimental from someone, and you're not an A&P, and you did not build it, you had better bring it to an A&P or the original builder for the annual or major work.

    The RULES may allow that I can send my 10 year old out to swap out the ignition system on my RV8 and then go flying. In practice, that would not be a good idea obviously.

    But as was said, just because you can work on it, does not mean you should. At least not without supervision or follow up checks by an A&P.

    Back to the Bearhawk...quick video on what you can haul. That would be tough to squeeze into an RV.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rgnbjviNhg

  5. #15
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by BearHawke View Post
    The RULES may allow that I can send my 10 year old out to swap out the ignition system on my RV8 and then go flying. In practice, that would not be a good idea obviously.
    Certainly.

    But consider a similar point: Imagine the aircraft suffers a prop strike and the Lycoming needs to be torn down, inspected, and rebuilt. Most RV builders (and, I suspect, most Bearhawk builders) buy their engines as ready-to-install units. What in the construction of the aircraft prepared the builder to perform this task? Most builders did little more than hang the engine onto the mounts and connect controls, pipes, wires, and hoses. What makes the typical Lancair IVP builder qualified to maintain a twin-turbo aircraft engine?

    Every homebuilt owner...builder or not... needs to be aware their abilities may be limited, compared to a licensed A&P. We're authorized to perform the task, but we always have to consider whether we're putting ourselves at risk. Good buddy of mine built an award-winning Long-EZ. Every year, he does the annual...then taxis over to the FBO to have their mechanics check the engine over. He like that peace of mind.

    Sure, there are builders whose abilities put the average A&P to shame. But aircraft are really fairly simple. The engines are 1930s technology. A builder is always going to have an edge when it comes to airframe work, but it's really not that complex. For basic aircraft, like the Bearhawk and RV series, there should be plenty of advice available within the local EAA community.

  6. #16
    Well said.

    And though the Lycoming and Continental engines are old technology, if you have never torn an engine down and rebuilt it or had to do major engine repairs, it's definitely not a good idea to go it alone and figure it is alright.

    Some companies offer experimental builders the opportunity to actually build their own engine and have it test run before they take it home. That certainly is a step above just buying one already built and hanging it on the mount.
    But, that doesn't take the place of an general aviation A&P who has worked on Lycomings and Continentals for twenty years and has seen all the things that can go wrong with them.

    And now we have all the alternative engines out there, which A&Ps typically will not work on in an "official" manner. So builders with those engines are even more on their own and would have to rely heavily on
    online builder support groups and other resources. A seemingly simple thing like ring end gap and getting it wrong, and or spacing the gaps incorrectly in relationship to one another
    can cause big problems with some engines. While in some cases there is more than one way to accomplish a task, in others there are only two...a right way and a wrong way.

    You will never be sorry about having a second or third set of more experienced eyes look at what you have done and ask you questions about how you went about doing things.

    Avionics is another good example. I took one electronics class in high school. Does that mean I am qualified to delve into the inner workings of steam gauges or glass panels? No way. I would not
    even go there. Pack it up and send it off to the avionics company to troubleshoot.

    One of the great things about the internet with regards to aviation or other pursuits, is that there is a wealth of information out there, and it is very easy now to simply post a question online and
    get various responses from people who have been there done that, or are experts in their fields. That certainly has helped Experimental aviation see the growth it has. So when you choose
    to become a builder, make full use of the resource at your fingertips. But also be able to swallow your pride and know when you really should have someone else do a specific task.

    As you learn and gain experience, you can pass that knowledge onto the younger generations just getting involved, who have the same types of questions you had when
    you started. Leaving builder websites up, long after your airplane has been successfully built, definitely helps in that regard. You may have finished your RV7 back in 2006,
    but you can bet that a newbie just ordering the kit now, would be grateful to have access to the information, and what worked, what didn't work, how problems were resolved
    etc.

  7. #17
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Nice post, Bearhawke.

    I do like the Bearhawk Patrol, even if it does have one too many seats. :-)

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bentonville, Arkansas, United States
    Posts
    4
    I think the 125mph cruise mentioned *may* be a bit unfair to the Bearhawk. Given I'm not flying yet but given the experiene I've had in other builder's planes and talking to those flying: 125mph with a fixed flat pitch climb prop. The guys with cs props are seeing closer to 135-140mph on an o-360 engine (or throttled back 540). Also, yes it's more fuel$$$, but the 540 at 65% at 8-9000 ft will do the 150-160 mph. It's all in what you want it to do.-Matt

  9. #19
    That 125mph is direct from aircraft designer Bob Barrows and how he flies with his 360 in the Bearhawk. He is known to be frugal and not "hot rod Bob." Take one look at his instrument panel and you will see bare bone basics. But yes, you can indeed go faster at the expense of higher fuel burns.

  10. #20
    bigdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Spring, TX
    Posts
    64
    In the RV community there are two main drivers of the completion rate - money and life. With the newer matched-hole kits (RV-7/8/9/10/12) there are virtually no technical issues and because of the fleet size almost any option you can imagine is already designed and/or available to purchase. So if you have the money and life doesn't get in your way you can get the airplane built.

    The fact that you have two dramatically different choices says you have a confict that completion rate is not going to solve. Go with the one that sings to you... the one that excites you every time you see a picture of it. Having that spark will give you the perseverance to overcome any obstacle whether it's skill, time or incomplete plans. I finally built an RV-6 because I realized I fell in love with the RV family when I saw the RV-3 in 1974 and by 1996 it hadn't faded. I figured that was enough commitment to last through the build process. It was.

    I love the RV's and they are exceptional aircraft but your heart may be saying Bearhawk. If so then go with it. It's a blond or brunnette, Ginger or Mary Ann question. Only you know the right answer.
    Regards,
    Greg Young
    1950 Navion N5221K
    RV-6 N6GY - first flight 5/16/2021
    1940 Rearwin Cloudster in work
    4 L-2 projects on deck

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •